[dns-operations] Anycast vs. unicast NS

[Bill Woodcock]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Mar 20, 2011, at 12:21 PM, Jim Reid wrote:
> Extra complexity in server configuration
> More complicated systems & network management (procedures)
> More complicated monitoring arrangements
> More elaborate network operations and support (procedures)

Aren't all of these differences dependent on the number of servers, rather than whether they're anycast or unicast?  I'd argue, actually, that these are all valid arguments against large unicast server networks, that hold _less_ true of similarly-sized anycast networks.  After all, unicast servers each have to be uniquely configured and have unique routing and be managed, to some degree, individually.  None of that is true of anycast server clouds.

I think you're just arguing against having multiple servers, not against anycast.

> Extra complexity in router setups
> "Special" filtering/peering treatment for anycast ASNs and prefixes

I disagree with these two.  Routers don't need special configuration to deal with anycast, because they don't know the difference between anycast and unicast.  Therefore, no additional complexity on that front, nor any special treatment.

                                -Bill




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)

iEYEARECAAYFAk2GXYEACgkQGvQy4xTRsBHI3QCgmQRXZoi+A5f+wsEU7QfrTzXr
DzYAnA7bLM/T2ss9mbOlpJ9qxswzAeRB
=eTmI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----